Abstract
The article examines appeals against restrictive measures in child protection submitted to and decided upon by administrative courts in Finland. Restrictive measures used in care restrict children’s and young people’s fundamental and human rights considerably, meaning ‘confinement in fractions’. Therefore, young people’s access to justice is an important issue in situations in which they consider an error to have been made. We study appeals as a form of legal safety and as a means of error correction. Although young people, 12 years of age and older, have the right to appeal, the appeal system is mainly used by parents to appeal against restriction of contact. As such, the appeal system poorly protects young people’s individual access to justice, if at all. As only administrative courts can overturn the decision to apply restrictive measures, the adult-centeredness of the system and young people’s access to justice should be critically assessed and rethought.
Highlights
Unlike in many other countries, in Finland, the child protection system does not include any secure institutions for children, of whatever age
The analysis shows that the appeal system is not very sensitive or effective: young people do not use this form of legal safety it is precisely they who are in the first place affected by the restrictive measures and the full spectrum of the Finnish practice of confinement, whether regarding space, relations or time
The appeal system is mainly used by parents to challenge restrictions on contact between themselves and their young children, that is that element of confinement, which restricts relations as defined by parents
Summary
Unlike in many other countries, in Finland, the child protection system does not include any secure institutions for children, of whatever age. The objectives of restrictive measures are to ensure the aims of the placement or to secure the children’s or another person’s health, safety or some other interest laid down in the Child Welfare Act. Unlike rules and limits in upbringing provided in substitute care, restrictive measures interfere with fundamental rights that are guaranteed to children and young people, including civil and human rights such as self-determination, liberty, property and privacy The appeals against restrictive measures in child protection are examined as expressions of errors as seen by young people and parents, that is to say those who have the right to appeal, and the administrative courts’ decisions to reject or to accept the appeal are seen as their views on the perceived errors. The findings are presented under two headings: we first look at the errors as viewed by parents and young people, and at the responses by the courts
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
